Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-03-15 Council MinutesO 1*1 KNEEHILL COUNTY COUNCIL RESTRUCTURING OF THE LAND USE BYLAW MINUTES March 15, 2001 A meeting for the restructuring of the Kneehill County Land Use Bylaw was held on Thursday March 15, 2001, commencing at 8 30 A.M The following were present at the meeting Marylea Lowen Otto Hoff Mari Vetter James Hanger Richard Vickery Glen Wagstaff Councillor Division One Councillor Division Two Councillor Division Four Councillor Division Five Councillor Division Six Councillor Division Seven Jennifer Deak Administrator Barb Reimer Development Officer John Ruslmg Planner, Mountain View County Barb Long Recorded the minutes Also present at this meeting was Yvonne Evans, representative from Sunterra Farms Limited Reeve Hoff called the meeting to order at 8 55 A.M Mrs Deak requested the following addition to the agenda Sunterra Farms Limited — letter from Mr Dave Price Copies of the March 14 2001 letter received from Mr Dave Price, of Sunterra Farms Limited were distributed to Council and Mrs Deak read the letter aloud (attached and forming part of these minutes) Mr Price's letter included the following points 1 The aggressive time frame including very limited opportunity for public review and input was interpreted as an attempt to "ram the changes through' 2 The philosophy embodied in the proposed changes was felt to be clearly against value added food production and noted they are opposed to this philosophy 3 Impact would be the greatest on the farmers in the S W portion of the County, where a substantial portion of value -added production exists and which until the November 2001 election will have no elected representation on Council To proceed with the bylaw without an elected representative for this region raises not only ethical questions but potential legal ones as well 4 The best agricultural land would lose its priority for food production under this bylaw 5 The Alberta government is deliberating over establishing standards and regulations for livestock operations including a review of the soon to be presented report from the Sustainable Management of the Livestock Industry in Alberta Committee and it would be prudent for Kneehill County to delay the bylaw until it is clear what the provincial government will be doing on a province wide basis Mr Price s letter also stated that, "Should the County put in place legislation which conflicts with that of the Province and this conflict is onerous and discriminatory, causing hardship on a local level, it will give rise for claims to be filed against the County to recover funds felt to have been lost as a result " The letter concluded with a request for the County to put the new Land Use Bylaw on hold to allow time for input from all ratepayers and until there is a full representation on Council The reply to the above letter, faxed to Sunterra Farms Limited on March 14 2001 was distributed to Council and read by Mrs Deak (attached and forming part of these minutes) This letter of response contained the following information 1 A review of the process followed to implement a new Land Use Bylaw and the associated time frame It was noted the first of several review meetings began on November 1999, possible changes were discussed with ratepayers at Planning [A \J I KNEEHILL COUNTY COUNCIL RESTRUCTURING OF THE LAND USE BYLAW MINUTES March 15, 2001 Divisional Meetings in February 2000 and 2001, an Open House was held for public input on March 7, 2001 and a Public Hearing will be held six to eight weeks after the first reading, which has been tentatively scheduled for April 10 2001 2 Council is committed to agriculture and the proposed Land Use Bylaw has addressed numerous aspects of land use 3 All County ratepayers are represented by all six elected officials The divisional boundaries are for election purposes only 4 Kneehill County clearly states its support for agriculture in its Municipal Development Plan and the Land Use Bylaw provides the operating mechanism to achieve these objectives 5 Under the Municipal Government Act, local municipalities are responsible for planning and development within their boundaries, working with the provincial government to ensure objectives are met The proposed Land Use Bylaw is not in conflict with current provincial legislation In conclusion the letter stated that Council has carefully reviewed its planning documents, and the proposed changes to its Land Use Bylaw have been made after careful consideration, due diligence and in good faith Discussion ensued with the following comments being made Mr Vickery suggested that Sunterra Farms Limited should have attended the Divisional Meetings to hear the concerns of other County ratepayers Mr Hanger noted that Sunterra Farms Limited is not the only operation in the County and Council needs to represent all aspects He further reported taking exception to this letter of threat and advised this Council is willing to work with all ratepayers not dust focus on one group Mr Hanger further advised Council has been working on this proposed Land Use Bylaw for a long time and are not attempting to ram it through, as suggested in Mr Price's letter Mrs Deak explained the public hearing process noting it will allow plenty of time for ratepayers to make recommendations and provide input Mrs Vetter noted that Mr Price's letter was not constructive, simply threatening She reconfirmed that the elected officials represent the entire County, not just a division Mr Wagstaff questioned what stage the province is at regarding implementing standards based on the findings of the Sustainable Management of Livestock in Alberta Committees Mr Ruslmg reported this committee was tentatively planning on making their presentation and recommendations to the provincial government in April 2001 and had no idea how long it would take from that point Mr Wagstaff reported the last time this issue was reviewed by the government, the process took 2 3 years and nothing came of it Mr Ruslmg reported he felt it is important for municipalities to carry on and if the rules change then the municipalities would make the necessary changes at that time Mr Ruslmg further reported that there is a need to look at the bylaws and municipal plans with Alberta Agriculture's new Code of Practice in mind Mr Vickery advised that the municipality is not able to put business on hold while waiting for the provincial government to make a decision Moved the March 14, 2001 letter of response sent to Mr Dave Price, Sunterra Farms Limited, accurately reflects the Committee/Council position Mr Hoff requested Ms Reimer present any feedback she has received on the proposed Land Use Bylaw Ms Reimer reported that while she has received nothing in writing, she has heard concerns from the public both at the March 7 2001 Open House and through phone calls She further reported that 90% of the feedback has been regarding the addition of Intensive Livestock Operations, under General Land Use Regulations, with three main issues having surfaced 1 The new requirement that the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) all be situated on land owned by the individual proposing the development (on all new development) Planning 2 1 M A KNEEHILL COUNTY COUNCIL RESTRUCTURING OF THE LAND USE BYLAW MINUTES March 15, 2001 2 Limiting the number of large intensive operations within the County (with no new development permits approved for new or expanding intensive operations where they are located within three miles of any other intensive operation) 3 Limiting the maximum size of intensive operations by specifying the on site capacity at any given time Discussion followed on the following areas of concern. 1 Ownership of the MDS — Ms Reimer provided an example whereby a new beef feeder operation, having 1 000 head of feeders, would need to own more than one quarter section of land in order to achieve the required 1 003 foot set back from the property lines Mr Rusling noted that Council has a difficult fob in that they need to balance everyone's interests He also reported it is necessary for them to weigh carefully which direction they decide to take Mr Rusling advised the regulation that the MDS being situated on the individuals own property only applies to new operations, not to existing operations In response to a question from Council, Mr Rusling reported that most Municipal Districts and Counties don t require the MDS be owned by the intensive operator but due to the effect on adjacent landowners some are heading in this direction Mr Rusling commented that there is no right or wrong answer, Council is able to write the policy and can stipulate all or a majority of the MDS be situated on land owned by the individual proposing the development Mr Wagstaff questioned whether it would be reasonable to make a 1,000 head beef feed lot build in the middle of a quarter section? He further asked whether the intent was not to keep the large intensive operators further away from adjacent landowners? Mr Wagstaff questioned the economic feasibility of requiring someone to own a section of land to be able to operate a 1,000 head feed lot? Ms Reimer advised there would not be a lot that could be put on a quarter section of land if the Land Use Bylaw stipulates that the MDS be owned by the developer, and suggested Council could consider the option of owning a percentage of the MDS Mr Hanger questioned whether the owning of all, or a portion of the MDS, could be dependent upon the number of animals 2 Limiting number of intensive operations of certain sizes by requiring a 3 mile separation between intensive operations — Ms Reimer reported that comments have been received that this distance is too great Many people were concerned with the effect this would have on the expansion of operations 3 Hamlets — Ms Reimer advised several concerns have been received regarding industrial strips being allowed to be located along the railways These lots are not large enough to meet setbacks for residential development, nor to keep neat and orderly industrial developments 4 Recreational Districts — Ms Reimer reported she has received mainly questions as to what this district is about and how it will change things She has advised that the proposed Land Use Bylaw would require re designation approved by Council, for a use that falls into this district Ms Reimer reported she has been recommending that anyone having concerns should send them in writing Mr Wagstaff asked if there would be anything in the proposed Land Use Bylaw that would address small agricultural holdings, more than 5 acres but less than 80 acres? Ms Reimer responded that a re designation from Agricultural Conservation District to Agricultural District needs to be done for any subdivision over 20 acres Mr Rusling advised this re designation is to allow for specialized agricultural use in smaller acreages Mr Hoff advised that Council would need to go "In Camera" at this point, to address a matter that has arisen regarding the Kneehill Ambulance Planning A A rI KNEEHILL COUNTY COUNCIL RESTRUCTURING OF THE LAND USE BYLAW MINUTES March 15, 2001 Moved the meeting go "in camera "I after a short recess, to discuss this matter Time 9 35 A.M Mrs Yvonne Evans left the meeting after the recess Moved the meeting come "out of camera." CARRIED Time 1120 AN Mr Vickery and Mr McCook were not present The next Land Use Bylaw Planning session was set for Thursday March 22 2001 with the time to be determined by the availability of Mr Ruslmg Moved Council adjourn Time 1125 A.M C of A mistrative Officer Planning Via /�' �` 6 4